Agenda item

Application to vary conditions 4 (season), 7 (approval of pod details) and 8 (approval of storage details) attached to planning permission reference C14/1218/33/LL

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen Davies

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse – reasons

1.         The proposal would equate to the creation of a permanent alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area and therefore contrary to criterion 1 of Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.

2.         It is not considered that the proposal would do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the LDP.

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

The application was submitted to Committee as the site was owned by a member of the Council.

a)      The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that this was an application to amend conditions 4 (restriction of pitching season), 7 (submission and agreement of pod details) and 8 (agreement of storage arrangements) attached to planning permission C14/1218/33/LL. It was explained that planning permission C14/1218/33/LL provided conditional planning consent for the change of use of a field to create a touring caravan site for 11 touring caravans and 2 camping ‘pods’ along with the construction of a toilet block. Based on the information submitted as part of the application to hand, it was noted that the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1 March and 31 October but that the pods would remain on site without being let/occupied for the rest of the year. Details of the pods had not been submitted, nor were details of the site where they would be stored, as required by conditions 7 and 8 of the planning permission granted in March 2015.

When conditional planning consent was granted for the pods in question in 2015, this had been done on the understanding that they would be portable pods which could be moved to and from the site easily. Despite the clear conditions attached to the original permission to agree the details of the pods and storage arrangements, this was not done. The officer also drew attention to the condition which stated that no touring caravans or pods were to be stored on site between 1 November and 28 February the following year.

He highlighted that the application stated that the pods on the site were of the type that could be weakened or damaged in being moved at the end or start of the season, and that the applicant intended to keep the pods on-site throughout the year. Since the applicant did not intend to remove them from the site during the winter months, the application had been given consideration under Policy TWR 3 of the LDP, which related to static caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation.

It was noted that the site was located in open countryside outside any development boundaries recognised in the adopted development plan, and within a Special Landscape Area. It was also located within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. Due to its location within a Special Landscape Area, Policy TWR 3 of the LDP stated that proposals for the development of new permanent alternative camping accommodation within such areas will be refused. It was not considered that approval of a permanent pod site in this location would assist in preserving, enhancing or restoring the character of the Special Landscape Area. Although the pods in question were located near to existing buildings, a permanent development of this nature would be likely to cause harm to the visual quality of the landscape and it was therefore considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 and Policy AMG 2 of the LDP.

b)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

c)    During the ensuing discussion the members made the following comments:

·         To approve the application would set a dangerous precedent

·         Approval would be unfair to applicants who had already been refused

·         They accepted that there were costs involved with moving the pods, but given that a condition had been attached to the application before the pods were sited, surely the cost element had been taken into consideration

·         The conditions from 2015 clearly stipulated that the pods should be portable and removed during the winter

·         Conditions were set for a reason

·         The applicant should comply with the conditions

·         There were already two wooden pods on-site and they looked presentable

·         There was no local objection to the application

·         Removing the pods would involve additional costs

·         The development would not have a wider impact on the historic landscape, and was therefore acceptable in respect of policy AT1 of the LDP

·         The proposal was unlikely to cause significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood and was acceptable in respect of Policy PCYFF2 of the LDP

ch)     In response to the observations, the Assistant Head of Planning and the Environment noted that although on the surface the application appeared to be harmless, approving the application would set a dangerous precedent and would undermine Planning policies.

RESOLVED to refuse the application

1.            The proposal would equate to the creation of a permanent alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area and was therefore contrary to criterion 1 of Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.

2.            It was not considered that the proposal would do anything to preserve, enhance or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the LDP.